Cometk wrote: umeu wrote:
I wonder how many of you (I'm quoting CometK but there are more with similar arguments) were saying the same thing when the balance discussion was about otto/iro and old han. by this logic we never shouldve had esoc patch to begin with. afaik no one is saying stuff about kynesie for using this style, people are talking about the style, not about who uses it. And that's already progress from the otto/iro china old han debate, because there people would say you should die if you jan rush etc.
so, you have to come at this from two different angles
1) when you are playing in a competition, you should do everything in your power to win it. there are no excuses for not utilizing anything and everything, within the rules, to your advantage
Of course there is an excuse. Not everyone plays in a competition to win it. Most people play in a tournament because they enjoy the game and want to up the stakes a little. Besides, if the best style of play is not enjoyable to play or play against then it makes sense if players don't want to spend time practicing it or against it.
2) taking a step back from the competition itself, it's important to recognize what things break the game and what things don't
a decent definition of "breaks the game" (certainly not an all-inclusive one, as there are many other ways to define it or otherwise suss out its meaning) is if you MUST play the particular strategy or face losing the game without doubt. as was the case in the PK clan tournament (to my shoddy memory), basically every game contained either iroquois or ottoman if not both. everyone was playing those two civs as often as they could. while yes as i mentioned earlier this is the most competitive way to play the tournament, when taking a step back from the competition itself we can kind of see that a 14-civilization game being completely dominated by just 2 of them does not constitute a very healthy metagame
I don't agree with that definition of "breaks the game". I think that, to an extent, if a playstyle is too different from the game everyone wants to play, from AoE3 supremacy as most of us know and love it, AND it has major design and balance issues, then imo it should be treated as game breaking. It cannot be strong enough that players are forced to deal with it when it's not the game they want to be playing. I would call it broken, but not necessarily overpowered.
As for the design and balance issues, there are many that EP hasn't touched (yet). To name the (imo) most important ones:
- War ships don't cost population, rather there is a hard limit
- Whales allow for gold gathering on water, which makes control of the water too important; it gives the player an economic advantage for the entire duration of the game
- War ships don't fire in predictable ways which means there are only so many (basic) micro techniques involved in controlling them
On top of that there are still balance issues with many cards.
I was always afraid to change too much because it was very controversial. I and many others argued things needed to be done about this years ago and there was a lot of resistance, mostly I think because people enjoyed watching it so much.
For reference: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=559&hilit=water+thread
My point being that water doesn't have to be overpowered for us to change it.